IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/agisys/v178y2020ics0308521x19304706.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Deforestation and current management practices reduce soil organic carbon in the semi-arid Chaco, Argentina

Author

Listed:
  • Baldassini, Pablo
  • Paruelo, José María

Abstract

The soil is a fundamental component of the C cycle. Land use changes can alter the soil organic carbon (SOC) content, a key determinant of several regulation ecosystem services. Here, we analyzed the effects of land cover (e.g. from forest to cropland) and land use (i.e. management practices) change on SOC in the semi-arid Chaco of Argentina, a global deforestation hotspot. Using the CENTURY model, we analyzed SOC changes over 20 years for two sites with contrasting rainfall (600 and 800 mm). For each site, we evaluated the effect of different combination of management practices (e.g. fertilization, grazing intensity) and land uses (i.e. annual crops and sown pastures). 98.5% of the simulations performed for cropping systems showed a reduction in SOC, with an average reduction of 25% respect to the native forest. Wheat proportion in the crop rotation had the highest relative influence on SOC variation (54%), higher than the proportion of maize (26.4%) and nitrogen fertilization (9.8%). For sown pastures, <40% of the simulations showed SOC decreases up to 18%. Grazing intensity had the greatest relative influence on SOC variation in both sites (>60%), followed by burning (19%), temporary exclusion of cattle (12%) and nitrogen fertilization (4.3%). In most cases SOC changes were mainly explained by changes in C inputs (i.e. NPP) rather than by changes in outputs (i.e. respiration and erosion). Therefore, delta SOC showed a strong negative relationship with the Human Appropriation of NPP (R2 = 0.54 and 0.67 in cropping systems and pastures, respectively). Overall, our results suggest that land use change has negative effects on SOC regardless of the management practices implemented. The few combinations that balanced food production and carbon sequestration were maize monocultures with annual N fertilization, and cattle raising with temporary exclusion and burning suppression. Our results may be used to define management practices that allow maintaining soil carbon stocks in the upper soil layer.

Suggested Citation

  • Baldassini, Pablo & Paruelo, José María, 2020. "Deforestation and current management practices reduce soil organic carbon in the semi-arid Chaco, Argentina," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 178(C).
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:agisys:v:178:y:2020:i:c:s0308521x19304706
    DOI: 10.1016/j.agsy.2019.102749
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308521X19304706
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.agsy.2019.102749?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Murray, Francisco & Baldi, Germán & von Bernard, Tamara & Viglizzo, Ernesto Francisco & Jobbágy, Esteban Gabriel, 2016. "Productive performance of alternative land covers along aridity gradients: Ecological, agronomic and economic perspectives," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 149(C), pages 20-29.
    2. Fisher, Brendan & Turner, R. Kerry & Morling, Paul, 2009. "Defining and classifying ecosystem services for decision making," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(3), pages 643-653, January.
    3. Richmond, Amy & Kaufmann, Robert K. & Myneni, Ranga B., 2007. "Valuing ecosystem services: A shadow price for net primary production," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 64(2), pages 454-462, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Mosciaro, María Jesús & Seghezzo, Lucas & Texeira, Marcos & Paruelo, José & Volante, José, 2023. "Where did the forest go? Post-deforestation land use dynamics in the Dry Chaco region in Northwestern Argentina," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 129(C).
    2. Baldassini, Pablo & Bagnato, Camilo Ernesto & Paruelo, José María, 2020. "How may deforestation rates and political instruments affect land use patterns and Carbon emissions in the semi-arid Chaco, Argentina?," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 99(C).
    3. José M. Paruelo & Miguel Sierra, 2023. "Sustainable intensification and ecosystem services: how to connect them in agricultural systems of southern South America," Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, Springer;Association of Environmental Studies and Sciences, vol. 13(1), pages 198-206, March.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Patton, Douglas & Bergstrom, John C. & Moore, Rebecca & Covich, Alan P., 2015. "Economic value of carbon storage in U.S. National Wildlife Refuge wetland ecosystems," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 16(C), pages 94-104.
    2. Michael Mann & Robert Kaufmann & Dana Bauer & Sucharita Gopal & James Baldwin & Maria Del Carmen Vera-Diaz, 2012. "Ecosystem Service Value and Agricultural Conversion in the Amazon: Implications for Policy Intervention," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 53(2), pages 279-295, October.
    3. Comino, E. & Ferretti, V., 2016. "Indicators-based spatial SWOT analysis: supporting the strategic planning and management of complex territorial systems," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 64142, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    4. Daniela D’Alessandro & Andrea Rebecchi & Letizia Appolloni & Andrea Brambilla & Silvio Brusaferro & Maddalena Buffoli & Maurizio Carta & Alessandra Casuccio & Liliana Coppola & Maria Vittoria Corazza , 2023. "Re-Thinking the Environment, Cities, and Living Spaces for Public Health Purposes, According with the COVID-19 Lesson: The LVII Erice Charter," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(10), pages 1-17, September.
    5. Bolaños-Valencia, Ingrid & Villegas-Palacio, Clara & López-Gómez, Connie Paola & Berrouet, Lina & Ruiz, Aura, 2019. "Social perception of risk in socio-ecological systems. A qualitative and quantitative analysis," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 1-1.
    6. Ze Han & Wei Song & Xiangzheng Deng, 2016. "Responses of Ecosystem Service to Land Use Change in Qinghai Province," Energies, MDPI, vol. 9(4), pages 1-16, April.
    7. Alessio D’Auria & Pasquale De Toro & Nicola Fierro & Elisa Montone, 2018. "Integration between GIS and Multi-Criteria Analysis for Ecosystem Services Assessment: A Methodological Proposal for the National Park of Cilento, Vallo di Diano and Alburni (Italy)," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(9), pages 1-25, September.
    8. Law, Elizabeth A. & Macchi, Leandro & Baumann, Matthias & Decarre, Julieta & Gavier-Pizarro, Gregorio & Levers, Christian & Mastrangelo, Matías E. & Murray, Francisco & Müller, Daniel & Piquer-Rodrígu, 2021. "Fading opportunities for mitigating agriculture-environment trade-offs in a south American deforestation hotspot," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 262.
    9. Johann Audrain & Mateo Cordier & Sylvie Faucheux & Martin O’Connor, 2013. "Écologie territoriale et indicateurs pour un développement durable de la métropole parisienne," Revue d'économie régionale et urbaine, Armand Colin, vol. 0(3), pages 523-559.
    10. Hooper, Tara & Cooper, Philip & Hunt, Alistair & Austen, Melanie, 2014. "A methodology for the assessment of local-scale changes in marine environmental benefits and its application," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 8(C), pages 65-74.
    11. H. Spencer Banzhaf & James Boyd, 2012. "The Architecture and Measurement of an Ecosystem Services Index," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 4(4), pages 1-32, March.
    12. Wang, Shifeng & Wang, Sicong & Smith, Pete, 2015. "Quantifying impacts of onshore wind farms on ecosystem services at local and global scales," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 1424-1428.
    13. Elena Ojea & Paulo Nunes & Maria Loureiro, 2010. "Mapping Biodiversity Indicators and Assessing Biodiversity Values in Global Forests," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 47(3), pages 329-347, November.
    14. Bo Yang & Ming-Han Li & Shujuan Li, 2013. "Design-with-Nature for Multifunctional Landscapes: Environmental Benefits and Social Barriers in Community Development," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 10(11), pages 1-26, October.
    15. Shujun Liu & Xinzhuan Yao & Degang Zhao & Litang Lu, 2021. "Evaluation of the ecological benefits of tea gardens in Meitan County, China, using the InVEST model," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 23(5), pages 7140-7155, May.
    16. Stapleton, L.M. & Hanna, P. & Ravenscroft, N. & Church, A., 2014. "A flexible ecosystem services proto-typology based on public opinion," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 106(C), pages 83-90.
    17. Norgaard, Richard B., 2010. "Ecosystem services: From eye-opening metaphor to complexity blinder," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(6), pages 1219-1227, April.
    18. Gregg C. Brill & Pippin M. L. Anderson & Patrick O’Farrell, 2022. "Relational Values of Cultural Ecosystem Services in an Urban Conservation Area: The Case of Table Mountain National Park, South Africa," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(5), pages 1-28, April.
    19. Vahid Amini Parsa & Esmail Salehi & Ahmad Reza Yavari & Peter M van Bodegom, 2019. "An improved method for assessing mismatches between supply and demand in urban regulating ecosystem services: A case study in Tabriz, Iran," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(8), pages 1-22, August.
    20. Kosoy, Nicolás & Corbera, Esteve, 2010. "Payments for ecosystem services as commodity fetishism," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(6), pages 1228-1236, April.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:agisys:v:178:y:2020:i:c:s0308521x19304706. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/agsy .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.